General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 217

I'm very here for that tbh. No ethical consumption anyway

 

did you miss the part where he said "you can make any stupid analogy to fit your opinion" or

 

Legitimately hilarious to think Sean Hannity thought showing his face in Philly was going to go well

 

Don't Listen To Nate Silver, Listen To Me

for those who may be disillusioned with 538's methods this year.

 

From that article:

Whatever the value of the larger FiveThirtyEight.com exercise (that is, of so-called data journalism), presenting this kind of information without any context merely provides readers with an opportunity to project their fantasies, fears, and anxieties onto a set of vaguely significant numbers.

What a weird statement ... there was a lot of context about that now-poll in his write-up and even more on Twitter from him ... like, did Gawker even read the site?

But one method to measure the convention bounce is to look at FiveThirtyEight’s now-cast, our estimate of what would happen in an election held today. We don’t usually spend a lot of time writing about the now-cast because — uhh, breaking news — the election is scheduled for Nov. 8. The now-cast is super aggressive, and can overreact to small swings in the polls. But it’s useful if we want to get a snapshot of what the election looks like right now. It suggests that in an election held today, Trump would be a narrow favorite, with a 57 percent chance of winning the Electoral College.

The now-cast also suggests that Trump has gained a net of about 4 percentage points on Clinton in national polls from a week ago, turning a deficit of about 3 points into a 1-point lead. If so, Trump would turn out to have a fairly typical convention bounce. Over the past few cycles, convention bounces have been 3 to 4 percentage points, on average. As is also typical of convention bounces, Trump appears to have gained in the polls (taking votes from undecided and third-party candidates) more than Clinton has declined.

and:

If you have technical questions about how our models work, I’d encourage you to read our methodology primer. But in some ways, all of this detail is missing the forest for the trees.

On the one hand, the conventions are not a particularly good time to sweat every tick in the polls. Instead, they tend to be one of the less accurate times for polling. Historically, it’s unusual for candidates not to at least pull into a rough tie after their party convention — John McCain and Sarah Palin did so in 2008, for example, and even Walter Mondale led a couple of polls in 1984. But those bounces do not always turn out to be predictive.

If you must make a forecast, it’s probably better to adjust the polls (as the polls-plus model does) than not to adjust them. But even the polls-plus model is making what might best be described as an educated guess. Recent convention bounces have been relatively small, but historically, the polls have been highly volatile around the conventions, with convention bounces in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s sometimes running into the double digits. In some ways, the trajectory of the Clinton-Trump race so far has resembled a “vintage” presidential race, with wilder swings in the polls, as opposed to the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections, when the polls were generally quite steady.

 

Owen Smith: There are too many immigrants in parts of Britain
Today in "Labour failing to learn anything from recent happenings in UK politics"

 

honestly it's gawker so they probably did not. i think the broader point about the difficulty of measuring probability-based forecast's success is kind of lost in there. i still think 538 is valuable and generally good but i know lots of people here have explicitly said they found Nate's presence this cycle to be disappointing or frustratingly inaccurate

 

Laughed out loud at that.

 

That was a great speech by Tulsi Gabbard

 

Beautiful moment with Bernie Sanders' brother just then.

 

Don't understand the point of Sanders giving all his delegates to Clinton. He already made a clear endorsement last night. I don't see how that move will bring any more real unity, but it could certainly leave a lot of Sanders supporters feeling like their voice was silenced and make them even less likely to vote for the democrats nominee.

 

The thing where people embarrass non-public figures in the crowd at events for the sake of retweets is one of my least favorite things about twitter.

 

Let the battle of "who is less likely to get impeached" begin!

 

my heart. it's sad, but i think it's happier than sad.

 

At The DNC, Black Women Activists Will Talk About Turning Grief Into Action

The Mothers of the Movement — black women whose children died as a result of police or racial violence, and whose children’s deaths helped spark a new generation of activism — will speak on behalf of Hillary Clinton and make the case that that grief can be transformed into purpose.

 

Now that Trump and Clinton are "official," I find myself wondering what the fallout will be after Election Day. If Clinton wins, will there be (more) violence among Trump supporters? Liberals if Trump wins?

 

I had a pretty big problem with the way it was coming across. It seemed like the "intent" was look at these entitled brats who are crying because they didn't get their way instead of here are people who are committed to progressive values and are inspired by a tremendous leader.

 

I don't know if this is comparable, but I don't recall riots after Obama was re-elected (considering how much hate there was/still is against him). Instead CEOs laid off employees and blamed Obama's re-election.

And not sure if this was intentional, but for those who saw The Purge: Election Year, the ending where voters eliminated the purge from future commencements, the media started reporting of riots in certain parts of the country and that definitely made me think of what if Trump loses.

 

If I'm not mistaken haven't a number of those women spoken out for HRC in primaries?

 

I may have been just young and less cynical so I didn't notice the animosity as much in 2008 or 2012, but it seems as if this hatred is unprecedented to me.

I was too scared to go see The Purge last weekend but I can imagine it being disconcerting considering the political atmosphere right now. Off topic, but is it worth going to see?

 

I think whether Trump wins or loses violence among his supporters is a possibility, if you're so not radical that you're voting for Hillary you're not gonna riot , including myself in that

 

If Clinton wins expect more the same from Fox News of relentless bashing her e-mails, Benghazi, being found to be extremely reckless, and any other skeletons that fall out of her closet where they can attempt to make mountains out of mole hills. (Meaning that any small trivial thing will be just as big a deal as being reckless with classified documents)

If Trump wins, there is major uncertainty as to what will happen as we only can really go off of how he's run his businesses so far to this point and wondering how long it takes before his "say whatever I want" actually gets him in deep hot water. There is clear uncertainty in the RNC as you see how hesitant members are about being seen or categorized with Trump

I don't personally believe there will be more violence or a call for violence, but there could definitely be protests which as we've seen that the longer protests go on, the more likely it is for violence to happen. With many of the things Trump has talked about doing will draw large protests - Muslims and Mexicans could essentially be put in danger with the wrong rhetoric put in place.

Politics tends to be all bark, no bite.

 

So in general I don't watch horror movies, for a lot of rational and ridiculous reasons, but the premise of the purge election as I understand it really angers me. To the point that I hope someone sues the company over it.